Sex. Once and for all.

Great Debates
1

Of all the culture war issues, the morality of premarital sex is arguably the most fundamental. At least 95% of Americans become sexually active before marrying. I like to say that people are voting with their bodies and sex wins by a landslide.

I also like to say that the idea that sex before marriage is immoral is dead but not buried. Certain people keep trying to revive it (I’ll leave it to your imagination how many of them are virgins or were when they got married). The abstinence-only movement insists that young people be told not engage in sex, not until they turn 18, not until they’re in a committed relationship, but until they are at long last married.

And yet we deal with this issue so obliquely. We say that it’s “not realistic” to expect your adults to go for decades without sex. Seldom does anyone in a position of authority stand up and say that it’s wrong. That it is indeed entirely normal for people to have a series of sexual relationships before settling down.

Sure, sex is fraught with complex moral and social implications as well as physical risks, but these can be managed. But certain folks don’t want people to be taught how to manage the pitfalls of premarital sex because that would imply that it’s acceptable. Well it is acceptable! I could broaden the issue and rant about how we bandy about the concept of “morality” without ever defining it. (I could also link to my essay on Family Planning FWIW.)

Instead, I’ll just ask, can’t we resolve this issue–of all issues–once and for all?

2

It’d be nice, wouldn’t it?

3

Most people probably resolved this debate for themselves decades ago. I sure did.

Not that I was ever on the fence, really.

4

Probably not, but only because like most things that are generally considered “morally questionable” most people who preach against them think it’s fine when *they *do it, because *they *have very special and unassailable reasons.

5

Perhaps, if you explained the actual issue, we might.

6

Can’t we resolve this issue once and for all?

Many of us would like to, but since we’re not budging, and there’s not really a compromise between “wait to have sex” and “not wait to have sex”, then . . . no, we’re not going to resolve this one.

7

Resolved: Premarital sex is not immoral per se, it it normal and should be explicitly condoned rather than just winked at.

8

[pet peeve] Condoned does not mean “supported”. It means “turned a blind eye to.”[/PP]

9

OK, I’ll be the voice of dissent, here. If a person is ready to make a major, life-changing commitment like having sex, then why isn’t that person also taking the relatively minor step of getting married? The problem isn’t that people are having sex too early, it’s that they’re putting off marriage too late.

10

You think sex is a more major commitment than marriage?

11

Because marriage is a much bigger commitment than sex. And because they may well not want to marry that particular person, or anyone. And there’s nothing wrong in that.

12

Chronos, I believe part of the premise of the proposition is that the mere having of sex is NOT necessarily for everyone a transcendent life-changing commitment to the point it requires solemnization by church and/or state to engage in it.

But you see, the one has little to do with the other. Religious and moralist authorities for AGES have known that people run around outside of marriage and even while married to someone else. Doesn’t change their opinion that it should be the other way around. And it may even be a completely deliberate decision on the part of those who established the religions/tribal taboos/social conventions/whatever to make the proclaimed standard be SO stringent, so at odds with the everyday experience, that nobody can actually meet it.

In the past, because of the acknowledged “implications and risks”, these taboos WERE a way to at least keep some sort of order in the sexual side of human behavior. Now there are better methods to prevent undesirable outcomes, but old habits die hard, and “sex is Big Juju, to be had only through this Very Special Ritual” is a much shorter explanation than a treatise on the pros, cons, risks and benefits of sex under varied life circumstances

Because it’s a “wrong” expectation only in the sense that it is incorrect because contrary to evidence. Thus “a rule of abstinence not realistic” is an accurate way of putting it, w/o sounding like you are actually advocating the contrary conduct.

That, and, the response you’d get to the last quoted statement is that something being the norm, or the usual and customary, does not compel anyone to like it being so, nor to abstain from seeking it should not be so, however futile the effort.

You’ll seldom hear any major figure on the other side say that the expectation of abstinence is “wrong” rather than “unrealistic” because a whole lot of folks who accept the idea that indeed nonmarital sex is a normal conduct, DO simultaneously feel that OTOH there’s something to be said for the virtue of chastity, in moderation.

Ah- new post:

Fine but there would be SO many people screaming for qualifiers… And you’d have to explain “explicitly condoned”, as FinnAgain illustrates. I don’t know, **sqweels **, would you expect social encouragement or just recognition that there’ll be no effort wasted in avoiding it, and instead it’ll be directed at making it safe? Would you expect opponents to shut up? If I may make an analogy, I could see the idea of moving society towards looking at nonmarital sex the way we treat alcohol or legal gambling: “this is not intrinsecally bad, but it’s for adults only; enjoy responsibly, be aware of risks, know when to back off; oh, and SOME people just shouldn’t partake”, while allowing the teetotalers to hold meetings, publish and recruit and continue to object from the backbench ('cause shutting them up may be one solution, but it would be a weak one).

13

If we can get to a point where casual sex no longer causes social ills, the “issue” you speak of might get resolved.

14

You need to acknowledge where most of this comes from, and that is to prevent pregnancies as the result of two people who are to committed to one another. I think they no it is unrealistic, but it might help bring down the numbers. That even if it makes people, particularly girls (who are the ones to be stuck with the kid), think about it more than they would otherwise, it’s a good thing. I’d also add that I don’t think that there is a significant group that advocate “abstinence only”, particularly for those of age and older.

I think you conflate two things: the people who argue for abstinence only for those under age, and those who argue against all premarital sex. I think that latter group is small, and gets miniscule as the age of the participants rises.

15

Hmmm… lots of people simply don’t consider sex to be a life-changing commitment… at least for many men. Some women probably think that way too.

16

Having a kid is a life changing commitment.
Catching an STD can be a life changing commitment.
Getting married is a life changing commitment.

Having sex with someone doesn’t have to have any more of a commitment than deciding which cereal I want to eat for breakfast.

And this may come as a shock to you, but there are actually people out there who think entering into a lifetime contract with someone that states that you will love them for the next 50+ years or they can have half your stuff is outdated and stupid.

17

Social conservatives seek to undermine advocacy of contraceptive use, not because failure rates lead to unacceptably high rates of accidental pregnancy, but because they undermine efforts to promote abstinence for abstinence’s sake.

Any my theory is that residual social stigma regarding sexuality often intimidates young people–especially girls–from acquiring contraceptives.

I don’t perceive a strong “abstinence until you’re 18” movement (which I would support). The “abstinence only” education policy supported by the Bush administration was explicitly “until marriage”. The other side was, “give them the tools and hope for the best”, but few have been unequivocal in saying it’s OK.

18

A given act of intercourse does not automatically cause a social ill. And lots of things cause social ills but which are not considered immoral.

19

To the OP: You mean like “lies”?
Because for too long a time we’ve been saying that lying is wrong but 99.95623% have done it.
People have voted with their actions. Let’s no longer simply condone it, let’s embrace it.

Your same argument also means that slavery was right up to a point in time were people voted with their minds to change them.

20

You answered your own question.

I guess I’m expecting them to at long last concede the point. Or go the way of the Amish.